Bivens v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bivens v. State

813 So. 2d 963, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 1412, 2002 WL 216429

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Bivens v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 2592 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 13, 2002·No. No. 4D01-4259·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the denial of appellant’s rule 3,850 motion and certify as a question of great public importance the same question certified in Major v. State, 790 So.2d 550, 553 (Fla. 3d DCA) review granted, 797 So.2d 586 (Fla.2001).

WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT OR COUNSEL HAVE A DUTY TO ADVISE A DEFENDANT THAT HIS PLEA IN A PENDING CASE MAY HAVE SENTENCE ENHANCING CONSEQUENCES IF THE DEFENDANT COMMITS A NEW CRIME IN THE FUTURE?

KLEIN, SHAHOOD and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the denial of appellant’s rule 3,850 motion and certify as a question of great public importance the same question certified in Major v. State, 790 So.2d 550, 553 (Fla. 3d DCA) review granted, 797 So.2d 586 (Fla.2001).

WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT OR COUNSEL HAVE A DUTY TO ADVISE A DEFENDANT THAT HIS PLEA IN A PENDING CASE MAY HAVE SENTENCE ENHANCING CONSEQUENCES IF THE DEFENDANT COMMITS A NEW CRIME IN THE FUTURE?

KLEIN, SHAHOOD and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Bivens v. State, 813 So. 2d 963, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 1412, 2002 WL 216429 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

813 So. 2d 963 (Bivens v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related